WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

FBI Finally Makes an Arrest in "Wolverine" Leak Case

Posted: December 16th, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
FBI Finally Makes an Arrest in "Wolverine" Leak CaseSubmit Comment
Back in April, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" was leaked online and was watched four million times before finally hitting theaters in May. 20th Century Fox believes that their $100 million film was hurt by the leak and took action to capture whoever is responsible.

Now, many months later, CNET is reporting that the FBI have apprehended 47-year-old Gilberto Sanchez, from the Bronx. Officials came across his name after working with MegaUpload.com and learning that a user by the names of "theSkilled1" and "SkillyGilly" was the one who uploaded the film to the file-sharing network.

The indictment does not say how Sanchez obtained a copy of the film, but the FBI has not ruled out more arrests. What this means is that Sanchez may not have been the original source of the leak.

If convicted, Sanchez faces up to three years in prison and a $250,000 fine or twice the gross gain or gross loss attributable to the offense, whichever is greater.

Click here to read our "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" review.

Source: CNET


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 69 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
minkowski writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 6:32:38 PM

Our tax dollars hard at work....
minkowski writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 6:39:16 PM

Yeah, they were hurt. They couldn't trick more fools into watching the film.

Online free downloads allow a viewer to see what their money will buy. If they watch a sh*tty cam, and say "hey, you know I was going to go see this in theaters, but now I won't because its trash", the greedy studios can't sucker that soul into buying a ticket.

Hollywood makes money in a way car lots could never allow: purchasing without a test drive and no refunds.

Imagine if you were to buy a car, and after doing so, you determined it was a lemon, or you simply hated it. Now imagine that you had bought that car after a very misleading 'test drive' in a version of the car specifically designed to impress you, a car that was in reality very little like the one you planned to buy. Now compound that scenario with a total no refund policy.
triggax writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 6:40:11 PM

Yeah no sh*t.. Hes probably a hard working family man to boot... f*cking horse sh*t.. The movie was a pile of *ssholes anyways..
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 6:57:08 PM

"The movie was a pile of *ssholes anyways.."

I f*cking lol'd.
Ranger writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 7:24:31 PM

Nice trig... lol.

"MegaUpload" sounds like another bonding experience on allowance day between Pappy and VinDandy!

wonderBOY writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 7:41:03 PM

why didnt he put a better movie
Eben1277 writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 7:41:56 PM

The FBI should be arresting the people responsible for making the film, not the ones that leaked it.
minkowski writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 7:49:00 PM

lol
barley_cat writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 7:54:53 PM

Love the rant Mink, Shouldn't the FBI be doing something usefulll like arresting people that put lives in danger, not movies?
eViL.kEv2 writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:00:22 PM

Yeah, I'm sure an almost-50 year old Mexican from the Bronx was the original source of the leak! Don't throw the poor bastard in jail, just make him cut Hugh Jackman's lawn for free for 6 months. That'll learn him
rabid writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:01:46 PM

Why is the FBI doing work for the film industry? that's disturbing.
minkowski writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:01:57 PM

"Shouldn't the FBI be doing something usefulll like arresting people that put lives in danger, not movies?"

You'd think, right?
rabid writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:04:53 PM

I thought I remembered them saying the leak worked for the special fx team in Australia.
minkowski writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:12:04 PM

From CNN.com:

Steve Zeitchik, who covers the film industry for The Hollywood Reporter, said the studio's biggest concern may be that having people view a rough cut "completely throws the studios off their game" of building a positive buzz for the movie.

"If people see this movie, and they don't like it, and they tell their friends, and their friends blog about it, and it just spreads throughout the blogosphere, there are a lot of people that don't even get near a pirated copy of this film, who don't go see [the movie in theaters] because of this leak," Zeitchik said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/02/xmen.piracy/index.html

Just like I said. They even admit it. I know they're talking about a rough cut of the film, but I'm sure this applies to even final cuts. They want to build 'buzz' and seeing it on the internet for free allows YOU to save money on crap.

And this guy, this uploader, he puts the files on MegaUpload? What a fool. Use a Russian filehoster next time. Use a proxy server located in Uzbekistan. Don't upload the file, naked, from your home computer to a http file hoster. Not that a scene release group would touch a rough cut film, but still.
barley_cat writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:15:40 PM

Yer i saw the film on some site, unfinished, with no special FX, just Blue-screen. Sucked then, and sucks now its finished... but hey, roll on the next one!
vwkombi writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:19:40 PM

Fox just can't f*cking accept the fact that they butchered Wolverine and it failed at the box office.

Had they made a great (hell even decent) Wolverine movie, people would've seen it regardless of the leak.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:24:43 PM

Sounds like Gilberto Sanchez' gonna take one for the team!
The modern day Jesus.
barley_cat writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:40:24 PM

Now there's a dodgy religious comment if ya ever saw one peter! lol
Peter Parker writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:52:08 PM

The man sacrificed himself for the fans, girl, and now they're putting him up on the cross for the people to learn the lesson!
See the analogy?

If I was a religious man myself, I'd pray for his sued-to-the-neck soul. lol
barley_cat writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 8:56:02 PM

Yes Peter, i saw the analogy, hence my comment, as in you were taking the mick out of Jesus, comparing him and his sefless, sacrificial actions to some movie-stealing loser!

DW i'm not religious, i'm just....observant!
minkowski writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 9:02:02 PM

Peter Parker is just being irreverently humorous, I think. He's pretty much tongue-in-cheek.

And I'm anything but religious, but I admire Jesus Christ (secularly) far more than some schlub getting himself knackered because he uploaded a sh*tty unfinished film to a website that keeps activity logs.

I would have to say that this guy, like dandy, is just going to have to take on on the chin.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 9:02:34 PM

Don't go calling the man a loser! The poor thing...
His only crime was trying to share some knowledge with the rest of the world... ehe

But I'm sorry I questioned your perspicacity. I should have known better by now! ;)
Peter Parker writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 9:05:18 PM

Irreverent isn't, but should be, one of my middle names.
barley_cat writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 9:06:13 PM

Damn right you shoulda Peter! Especially after the woman bashing! (or was that someone else)

Good someone's on my line of thinking- mink
Peter Parker writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 9:50:06 PM

About the woman bashing thing... hum... boys will be boys?

But it would have been nice having you around when that talk went down to read your opinion, though.
barley_cat writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 10:04:02 PM

Oh i was around PP, just refusing to post, as i was so insulted!

Not really, i just read it too late and by that time, i'd missed the oppurtunity to say anything worth making an impact lol.

Hell i won't deny that half the female population are a bunch of bitchy whores! But some of them are nice... like me? :)
thedotsays writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 10:10:57 PM

If the f*cking film was any good, those 4 million illegal views would have transferred into tickets. 4 millions views didn't hurt the film. The sh*tty film hurt itself.
bacci40 writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 10:36:18 PM

this is bullsh*t

some 48 year old dude from the bronx did not leak the print

this stupid idiot just downloaded it and then uploaded it again

what a f*ckin waste
bacci40 writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 10:39:03 PM

i wish cameron would leak a print of avatar to the net and disprove the entire notion that pirating hurts the grosses

btw, a dvd quality screener of the blind side is on the net....and that film has outgrossed twilight

Peter Parker writes:
on December 16th, 2009 at 11:19:22 PM

@ barley:

"Hell i won't deny that half the female population are a bunch of bitchy whores! But some of them are nice... like me? :)"

Well, you've certainly earned my respect after the whole parody with shefone on the other thread! Your participation? Veeery good stuff!;)
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 12:46:10 AM

****EDIT: Okay, I started writing a comment and it just kept getting longer and longer. It's a little lengthy, but I'm interested in hearing opinions.


Yeah, I agree that an arrest for uploading a movie onto Megaupload is a little harsh, I mean, it doesn't even sound like he's the one responsible for the original leak. The studios are clearly just trying to make an example out of somebody, anybody, make headlines, to deter things like that from happening in the future.

However, all I seem to be hearing from comments on this page and elsewhere on the net is a one-note tune, so I want to throw some contrary opinions out into the mix.

So some people don't believe that the pirating of movies doesn't affect box office. The logic that tends to employed in these situations generally runs something along the lines of, “Oh, Zombieland/X-men/InsertMovieHere was the most downloaded torrent of the month/year/whatever, and yet, look how well it did at the box office. See? It doesn't matter?” To which I counter, do we really know? Do we really know that it does or doesn't matter? I feel like there are some glaring holes in that logic. Just because a movie did well despite leaking onto the internet doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't have done better otherwise. On this we can agree?

Obviously, 1 million downloads doesn't = 1 million tickets lost. Plenty of those people went to go see it the movie at a theater anyway with their friends. Also, a good number of those downloads were by people that wouldn't have gone to see it anyway. But! I would also reckon, there's a significant chunk that would have gone to see it, but decided not to, because they could do so from the comfort of their homes. I mean, we can't really argue that this didn't happen AT ALL. Now, the majority of the movie going public remain in the dark about torrents or don't know how to use it, and since we can say with any degree of certainty only that SOME FRACTION of the downloads in question actually affect ticket sales, obviously it's not going to be enough to turn what would have been box office success into a box office flop. So box office results alone can't tell us much, and can't really serve as proof or lack of proof for anything. These factors are operating at the margins. But they're operating. And we live in good ol' capitalist America and we generally believe in the market, and that businesses are entitled to their profits. We don't see anything wrong with the shop owner notifying his security guard that some guy in a hood slipped a candy bar into his pocket (Just ONE candy bar!! Look how much the shop owner made that day anyway! Thousands in profits! Stealing doesn't matter!). So what changes in the transition from shop owner to studio head?

Well, the internet stealing is not the same. It really isn't. People that wouldn't dare to try and shoplift from a store regularly download songs and movies without second thought. With little consequence. Maybe that's the problem. In any case, the studios and record labels are doing what's in their best interest, within the confines of the law. This is expected, and more or less rational.

Some people say, “Well, if it's good, I'll go and see it again in theaters.” Good for you...but some people won't. And if it sucks, you won't. Kind of like, sitting down at a restaurant, ordering a meal, and if it's good, you'll come back later and pay to enjoy the meal again, but if it's not, you won't. Kind of like that? I hesitate to make this sort of comparison because the situations aren't entirely similar, and the analogy only works up to a point due to the nature of the goods in question. You can enjoy a pizza your whole life, eat it everyday, whatever, but a movie, for most people, is a one-time deal. I mean, if it's a treasured favorite, you may return to it every now and then, but it's not the same. This is even more the case for the “test-drive” analogy employed earlier by someone. The nature of the goods are so different, a car versus a movie, that the analogy doesn't really hold. A car is something you use for years, not something you drive once and throw away. The movie system has its own “test drive” system worked out in a way more compatible with movies. The trailer. Movie critics. User reviews after the movie's been released. You can find out who the director is, or the producers, the cinematographer, or the actors. You can watch selected clips on movie sites. Yes, there's always the risk that despite all the pre-movie evidence to contrary, you end up hating it. But they don't at this point have a machine that plugs into somebody's mind and determines whether or not this person would like the movie by brain analysis, so that if the machine readout indicates yes, the person can go and pay to see the movie with the assurance that he will enjoy it. That technology doesn't exist. So the alternative is to demand the legitimization of piracy? That it's somehow within our rights to see a movie without paying for it? If those rights existed, I'd like to know where it comes from, and have it explained to me.

I mean, I'm not innocent of the issue or anything, just trying to see what people think is all. So yea, opinions?
Ranger writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 1:25:08 AM

Sweet Jesus!

I had to go make a sandwich halfway through that! lol.
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:04:53 AM

Yea I just started typing away to get my thoughts down and halfway through I realized it was getting too long for anyone to bother to read. So I had to cut myself short. And it's still too long.

****The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph should be:

"So some people don't believe that the pirating of movies affects box office."
Ranger writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:08:12 AM

Just yankin' yer chain my friend.
TeemSelami writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:30:16 AM

f*ck em shouldn't have got caught. should have bought a used laptop (cash), should have made the account whilst sitting in a car whilst using someone else's wifi upload that sh*t throw said lap top off a bridge. i would love to hear a recording of this dudes first night in jail the sound of gilberto's *sshole being shredded by an uncirc*msised cellmate.
TeemSelami writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:31:15 AM

tom cruises penis doesn't have a head.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:29:59 AM

"But! I would also reckon, there's a significant chunk that would have gone to see it, but decided not to, because they could do so from the comfort of their homes."

I am pretty sure any and all Wolvie fans, the most likely market that would've partaken in downloading the film, wouldn't have traded their ticket in for a crappy, unfinished copy of the film, a copy that's inferior to even a workprint, much less then a DVD screener.
c-prime writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 4:38:38 AM

Anyone else find it hilariously ironic that he got arrested when his moniker is "theSkilled1"? Or is it only me?
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 4:51:54 AM

Wannabes almost always have some sort of pretentious nick...it implies that they believe what they call themselves is more important than actually performing competent tasks.

I could've uploaded this file without ever getting caught. Like someone else said, pay cash for a used laptop, jack some wi-fi, or use a public access point. Upload it pieces and the post the links. Or use a floating proxy and overseas http access.

If using a public location: Check for cameras. Wear a hat and bogus glasses (low power reading glasses are good). Remove any distinguishing attributes like an earring or necklace. Hide tattoos. Use a location you would never use otherwise. Don't go back. Stay incognito. Don't make conversation with other patrons. sh*t like that.

People like this dumbass either think they're skilled, which apparently he wasn't, or they think no one cares. He screwed up on both accounts.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 5:14:20 AM

"The nature of the goods are so different, a car versus a movie, that the analogy doesn't really hold."

The essence of the analogy isn't whether the objects being compared are identical, the issue is the commonality between the two that clearly illustrates an idea.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 6:11:06 AM

"We don't see anything wrong with the shop owner notifying his security guard that some guy in a hood slipped a candy bar into his pocket (Just ONE candy bar!! Look how much the shop owner made that day anyway! Thousands in profits! Stealing doesn't matter!). So what changes in the transition from shop owner to studio head?"

In my opinion, you are profoundly simplistic, and you seem inclined to go against the grain in a vain attempt to look intelligent, when instead you appear foolish.

You don't seem to understand the basic and intrinsic difference between a physical candy bar and an accrual of ones and zeros on a hard drive.

When you remove the candy bar from the shop, you've deprived the owner of actual matter. Atoms with specific weight have left his territory and entered yours. You've diminished his capacity to make a profit by permanently transferring a physical item from his ownership to yours.

When you download a film, it's a mere collection of binary code. Essentially a series of electrical charges or magnetic bit flips on a hard drive platter. By copying the file, any file, you've not immediately incurred any loss to anyone, especially as you're paying for the electricity, the hardware and the internet connection.

Therein lies the significant, profound and fundamental difference, and this is where your analogy holds absolutely no water, as the cliche goes, with respect to he difference between causal, profitless pirating and shoplifting.

As it goes, I can make a duplicate of a file, a film or an MP3, and cause no one any pain or loss. On the other hand, if I take your TV, what have you lost? A television. How would you get another? By buying it, of course. And how would you buy it? By going to work, trading part of your life to replace what I have taken. Now, is that remotely and necessarily true in the situation where I download some file, some form of intellectual property, off the net?

Now, in certain cases, where a company is creating profit by using a digital product, say like Photoshop, the case can be more easily made, without much argument, that a loss has occurred to the original IP owner, simply because you can demonstrate that the company would have the means to purchase the product, and an obvious and demonstrable inclination to do so.

In the case of the man sitting at home, perhaps a man or woman on a fixed income, or just a casual peruser of the internet, a charge of theft is far, far more difficult to prove, because again, in order to demonstrate logically and rationally that a loss has occurred you have to must also prove intent and means, much like any other crime.

Did the person have the means to buy the software in question? what was his or her intention? Was this a spur of the moment decision? Did this person have plans to see this film in theaters? Did downloading the film obviate the individual's desire to purchase the DVD?

Intent and means are everything. If the downloader had no intention of ever watching the film in theaters, and if he had no intention of ever purchasing the DVD, then there is no loss to anyone. At all. his actions have had a net effect of zero on everyone involved, and it is difficult to demonstrate that he committed a true crime, other than the fact that he did something technically rendered illegal.

Now, crime is often interpreted in popular and academic circles as an act that is deemed illegal. in other words, it's a crime because someone says so, and typically that someone is a group of people that are vested with the maintenance of power and control. With this definition, though, you can see that it is very possible to render illegal any act which suits the needs and desires of those in power. These laws are often arbitrary, like the federal legal drinking age which has virtually no basis in either science or rational thought,as there is no magical age at which a person suddenly becomes capable of handling alcohol responsibly.

So we can agree that laws are not often factually based nor are they rooted in any sort of rationality or logical foundation. Many are simply feel-good edicts, or religious moralizing dressed up int he clothing of weighed and considerate thought.

The laws against piracy, concerning digital violations of intellectual law, were originally intended to prevent copying, reproduction and selling, as a means to stop unlawful competition. In other words, a company should have th right to manufacture and distribute its own material, i.e., software, without competing with those producing illegitimate reproductions at lower cost. In other words, if I sell my film on DVD, I shouldn't have to compete with someone else selling copies of my film without my consent, and at a disadvantageously lower price. Ant-piracy in effect was devised to eliminate destabilizing competition.

Now, and here's the issue, how can you claim that shaky, blurry low quality cams are in any way competitive to the experience of watching a film in the theater? You cannot, and it is easyily demonstrable that anyone willing to choose just such a medium would in fact not see the film in the comfort of a theater.

It would be like demanding that a guy hiding in the back of a watermelon truck go out and buy a new car. Obviously, if he's getting his ride in such a sub par manner, he's not capable of much more, or else he would've have done so already.

Now, you could argue that this person is in fact very frugal. Perhaps he's just a freeloader, but again, if you have to force him to buy the product in question, you cannot argue that he was ever a contributor to the market to begin with, now can you?

And, let's be totally honest; let's imagine a scenario. Let's imagine a man name Bill. Now, one day Bill invents a box. A box made out of old toasters and TVs and coke cans. forget the possibility or impossibility of such a situation. This is a thought experiment. A way to explore an analogy.

Now, Bill invents this box. It has two buttons and a camera eye. You point the camera eye at an object and press the first button. You then point the camera way to an empty area and press the second button. Running on batteries you bought, the box device makes an exact duplicate of the object you were looking at when the first button as pressed.

Now you have an exact duplicate of the object in question. Is such an act stealing? You paid for the box and the batteries. You have aright to the box and its functionality. And no one lost anything.

If I come over to your house and perform the act of duplication on you television, what have you lost? Sure, the television company has lost a customer, but what have I done wrong? How an you demonstrate an act of moral turpitude? How can you demonstrate that I've committed a crime? You cannot, and the only to make this act a crime is for those that control the power to render the act illegal, for the sake of control and power. And yet, you cannot illustrate just how the box is either morally reprehensible or how your act of duplication is harmful.

This is the question before us. Technology allows us a power that interferes with the power and control others possess. Technology has usurped the old paradigm, and the powers that be have failed to either grasp the shift or adapt society to the changes. Technology has run ahead, policy and the institutions are crawling behind. It will take another generation or two before these changes, these shifts, have worked themselves out. And you can rest assured that what is illegal today may very well be the paradigm of tomorrow.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 6:14:50 AM

I'll have another post, perhaps twice as long, on the nature of the derivation of what we call 'rights'.

And forgive the spelling errors. I omitted a letter or a whole word here and there. I was very, very tired when I typed that titanic turd of a comment, so everything is doubtlessly not in its proper place.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 6:35:12 AM

Another case in point: A beta of Half Life 2 was leaked some years ago, before the game hit the shelves. It was widely downloaded. I even had a copy. And up to a point, you could play it. In the end, though, Half Life 2 went on to become one of the best-selling PC games of all time.
jdl107 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 8:08:03 AM

"btw, a dvd quality screener of the blind side is on the net....and that film has outgrossed twilight"

Who gives a f*ck? And where in the hell did you hear about TBS outgrossing New Moon? Damn dude you need to do some research.
thedotsays writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:32:52 AM

Dammit Mink, the scroll button on my mouse just broke. thanks!! lol
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 7:41:37 PM

"The nature of the goods are so different, a car versus a movie, that the analogy doesn't really hold."

The essence of the analogy isn't whether the objects being compared are identical, the issue is the commonality between the two that clearly illustrates an idea.


Yes, you've properly explained the form and function of an analogy. That was never the issue in question. This is the quote I was originally referring to:

“Hollywood makes money in a way car lots could never allow: purchasing without a test drive and no refunds.”

I am saying, if you take a look at what I spent a good chunk of the paragraph explaining: OF COURSE THEY DO. Of course Hollywood “makes money in a way car lots could never allow,” if by “test drive” as applied to Hollywood means seeing the movie without paying for it. This isn't a feasible business model because a movie is a one-time experience. You are paying for the EXPERIENCE. If we reverse the analogy, and apply a movie's defining characteristics to the car, we would have to say that the reason one buys a car is for the EXPERIENCE of having driven the car. So an individual goes to the car lot, test drives the car...and now has no incentive to buy the car because he has already EXPERIENCED driving the car. See how ridiculous that sounds? This is not why we buy cars. So the analogy ignores this fundamental difference in the nature of the two goods and the practical realities associated with it, and hence, renders your point (that Hollywood makes money in a way car lots could never allow) moot and meaningless. OF COURSE THEY DO.

I also explain that Hollywood has its own alternative “test drive” system, which pretty much allows you to find out everything you can about the movie short of seeing the movie in its entirety...which, you know, would defeat the purpose. Duh?




“Another case in point: A beta of Half Life 2 was leaked some years ago, before the game hit the shelves. It was widely downloaded. I even had a copy. And up to a point, you could play it. In the end, though, Half Life 2 went on to become one of the best-selling PC games of all time.”

This is another example of the argument that suggests that the success of a game/movie indicates something meaningful about whether leaks and illegal downloads have any harmful effect. I've addressed this in the original post (see paragraphs 3 and 4, the one that begins, “Some people don't believe...). Read those paragraphs again, and please respond directly to the arguments found within.
Eben1277 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 8:34:02 PM

I only read half of Minks comment, but I have to say, right now, Mink is awesome. Definitely broke that sh*t down like a pro.
ian_918 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 8:40:09 PM

I watched it when it came online. lol. Well can you blame me? Would anyone of you want to spend your money on this?
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:12:16 PM

Thank you, eben, for your kind words.
Eben1277 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:12:48 PM

Wolverine wasn't a box office failure either, it did make money, I think it opened with 80 mil or something like that. It may have been a huge disappointment of a film, but not a BO disappointment.
Eben1277 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:15:33 PM

That was for whoever it was that said they butchered it and made it a box office failure (can't be bothered to look, about to hit the sack)... they did butcher it, they just didn't make it a failure... I'm sure it would have done better if it was better, but how much can you really ask for when Fox is involved?
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:16:05 PM

You quote the store owner and the candy bar example, and follow with a reply that begins:

“In my opinion, you are profoundly simplistic, and you seem inclined to go against the grain in a vain attempt to look intelligent, when instead you appear foolish.
You don't seem to understand the basic and intrinsic difference between a physical candy bar and an accrual of ones and zeros on a hard drive.
When you remove the candy bar from the shop, you've deprived the owner of actual matter. Atoms with specific weight have left his territory and entered yours. You've diminished his capacity to make a profit by permanently transferring a physical item from his ownership to yours.”

I won't bother posting your entire reply for the sake of space, and...ignoring your insults for now (I'll deal with that later)...for the sake of discourse, let me just continue deconstructing your “arguments.”

Okay, let me present a hypothetical scenario. It's 10 years in the future, and Half-Life 3 is about to be released. In this future, everybody that has even a remote interest in playing HL3 has a computer capable of running it. Somebody cracks the game, making it available in all its glory, including online play and all the extra boons and customer support that are typically associated with the legit versions. There is no discernible difference between the legal and illegal copies. Installation involves only the click of a button. Everyone is aware of how to do this, and nobody has any qualms about doing it. There is no potential for punishment.

So, would Valve make a single dime in this hypothetical scenario? No. Not when there are two products that are virtually identical with the only difference being that in one of those cases, you would have to pay for it. The owner in this case, Valve, hasn't been deprived of “actual matter.” Atoms “with specific weight” haven't left their territory. This is a simple case of “ones and zeros accruing on a hard drive.” And yet, we've nevertheless “DIMNISHED THEIR CAPACITY TO MAKE A PROFIT.” Valve has wound up spending a hundred thousand man-hours and millions of dollars to churn out a wonderful new product, and they wind up with not a single cent to show for it. So they go out of business.

See, when you get on your high horse and say things like:

“Therein lies the significant, profound and fundamental difference, and this is where your analogy holds absolutely no water, as the cliche goes, with respect to the difference between causal, profitless pirating and shoplifting.”

Or:

“By copying the file, any file, you've not immediately incurred any loss to anyone.”

And when you, still on your high horse, talk about, um, “popular and academic circles” (haha)...it becomes hard to take you seriously. You take the difference between a digital product composed of binary code and something with more physical properties like a candy bar, a difference my 3-year-old cousin well understands, and proceed to call it a “significant, profound and fundamental difference” as if you've just made the insight of the century.

See, buddy, I recognize the difference. I recognize it better than you do...you with your shallow and surface level thinking. You jump to the most immediate and readily apparent conclusions, but you couch it some wannabe visage of sophistication while maintaining a smug superiority over the fact that you were able to recognize this simple difference. It's comedy gold, my friend. I love it. And on the basis of this difference, you go on to make proclamations like, “By copying the file, any file, you've not immediately incurred any loss to anyone.” (Because! See? Get it? No physical object was stolen!! So no losses to anyone! Aren't I so insightful? With that victorious intellectual feat of unprecedented proportions, let me parade around and act like I'm so much better than you!) Just further evidence of the shallowness of your thinking. Just because a physical object hasn't been taken off the shelf and put into someone's pockets, doesn't mean the company isn't losing anything from the situation, as I hope the HL3 example has clearly demonstrated.

To further elaborate on the issue, ya know, just in case you STILL don't get it, candy bars can't be converted into binary code and distributed in a way so that original candy bar still remains in the property of the store owner. The ONLY way to steal a candy bar is to steal the candy bar itself. If the technology existed so that we could take some magic box that converts candy bars into digital form, distributed at almost no cost through the internet, and then downloaded into the magic box of downloaders at home,where the box could convert this digital information back into the edible form of a candy bar, then the same problems that are plaguing the movie industry now would be affecting EVERY INDUSTRY. But alas, this isn't the case. The problem is unique to certain intellectual property industries (music, movie, games, etc.) that allow for the ready distribution of their product at no cost due to their digital natures. These products require money to make, and money to sustain, hence the need for profits. And when one person that would have paid for the product doesn't because of the availability of a free option, that is a loss to the company. Are they not entitled to their profits? Taken to the extreme, you have the HL3 example from above. Let me reiterate because you seem especially thick today, when you have illegal products that don't stray too far from the quality of the original, and these illegal products are finding means of distribution into the hands of consumers that WOULD HAVE bought the original product if the illegal version hadn't existed, THAT's where the problem arises. You get it? Just to ram the point in further so there is absolutely no confusion, how about another quote from you:

“As it goes, I can make a duplicate of a file, a film or an MP3, and cause no one any pain or loss.”

IF someone WOULD have paid for any of those things had it not been available for free, then you ARE causing losses to the respective company. I took the point to its logical extreme in the HL3 example since you couldn't seem to make the transition from illegal downloads ==> losses to a company. (See, I keep repeating myself, because the last time around, you did such a stellar job of ignoring just about every point, and retread the issues that have already been addressed in the original post) Oh sure, it couldn't be proven in court whether or not a person WOULD have paid for the item or not, and that's not even the issue. Piracy has consequences, though we don't have the means to determine exactly what those consequences are, or a numerical value of those damages. All I am asking is, WHY DO SOME PEOPLE FEEL IT'S JUSTIFIED?
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:17:41 PM

“Now, and here's the issue, how can you claim that shaky, blurry low quality cams are in any way competitive to the experience of watching a film in the theater?”

I never did. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

“I am pretty sure any and all Wolvie fans, the most likely market that would've partaken in downloading the film, wouldn't have traded their ticket in for a crappy, unfinished copy of the film, a copy that's inferior to even a workprint, much less then a DVD screener.”

Yes, Wolverine fans are one subsection of the market. Yes, the die-hards, especially, wouldn't even waste their time with an unfinished copy of the film because they want to experience the movie properly in its full glory. Blockbuster movies in general with big budgets and special effects are especially more resistant to the perils of the leaked print phenomenon, because many people feel that the proper way to enjoy such a movie is at the movie theater with a big screen and top-of-the-line sound system and an enthusiastic crowd. I also know that when it comes to PC games, there are online components that the cracked versions don't have ready access to, motivating users to buy the real copy. I appreciate all these points, however...

...All of that is besides the point.

That still doesn't change the fact that there ARE people that WOULD have paid, but didn't because they had the free version at home. The fact is, even after you take into account the people that ignore the illegal copy, and the people that saw the copy but went to go see the movie at the theater anyway, and the people that WOULDN'T have gone to see the movie anyway, that still leaves the subsection of people that WOULD have gone to see the movie, but because they got to see it for free, they didn't.

And I'm not really talking about crappy cam versions; rather, I have in mind the number of DVD quality versions that occasionally find their way onto the net while the movie is STILL IN THEATERS or even before they have been released. I have in mind cracked versions of games with no significant online component, providing a virtually identical experience to the legitimate version. Mostly, I have in mind the IDEA itself; I am wondering why people feel the IDEA itself justified. The idea that one has a right to see a movie without paying for it, and the notion that these acts have zero effect on the box office. And if we're talking about the justification itself, we should be able to put the ideal, perfect, pristine BluRay rip as the competitor to the movie going experience, and the argument should still hold up.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:28:19 PM

Actually, I wasn't really referring to you. I was posting my opinion. I wasn't putting words in your mouth because I wasn't talking to, or about, you. I quoted you as merely a lead-in to my exposition.

So, it's over with, dude. You're justing wasting bandwidth, and I am not reading that poorly written, illogical crap. Maybe someone will agree with you, think you're the greatest guy in the world for posting reams of bullsh*t. Good for them.

And...this place is about movies, not your verbal incontinence.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:34:11 PM

"I have in mind the number of DVD quality versions that occasionally find their way onto the net while the movie is STILL IN THEATERS or even before they have been released"

It's extremely rare to see a DVD version of a film appear on the internet, while it is still playing in theaters. Almost virtually nil. Almost always the DVD screener hits after the movie has grossed the bulk of its profit. And that's a screener, which is often inferior to a final cut DVD, usually occluded with some watermark or whatnot.

Again, I cannot recall a time when a high quality DVD appeared on the internet while a film was playing at its peak. Ever.

And again, even it is true, watching a DVD rip of a film is vastly inferior to watching the film in the theater. The two expereinces are not remotely commensurable. People are simply not going to trade one for the other unless they really had no intention of seeing the film in theaters to begin with.

Your lack of pirate knowledge and human psychology is nothing short of appalling.
Eben1277 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:39:03 PM

I can't believe this sh*t is starting on another thread now, no wonder no one is posting on any of the other threads.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:42:46 PM

"That still doesn't change the fact that there ARE people that WOULD have paid, but didn't because they had the free version at home."

If you think that a 700mb DVDScreener rip of a film, played on computer speakers, all on a 19 monitor, is a 'free version' of a theatrical experience, then you're a bigger idiot than I ever assumed.

Even if they convert the DVDscreener to a TV-playable DVD, and watch it on a 42 inch television, you're still going to have major compression issues which will negatively affect the viewing experience further.

Nevermind that most people don't have a clue how to convert one video file to another, Canopus Procoder aside, much less have the knowledge to make it play properly on a television in the proper format. Many DVDscreeners aren't even NTSC, but PAL.

The best case scenario is the actual, ready to burn, 4.36 GB DVDScreener ISO, and again, you have a lack of quality that is simply not comparable to a theatrical viewing. Not to mention an indelible and often present watermark.

Every film I have ever downloaded was something I would not have watched in theaters. I consider myself fairly typical in that aspect. You simply cannot translate every download to a lost ticket. That's just stupid, especially when all evidence indicates just the opposite.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:46:21 PM

"I can't believe this sh*t is starting on another thread now, no wonder no one is posting on any of the other threads."

IttyBittyTitty feels he has something to prove. I have no idea what it is, and to who he is trying to prove it, but I can say I hardly care, outside illustrating the deficiencies in his reasoning.
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:49:54 PM

“In my opinion, you are profoundly simplistic, and you seem inclined to go against the grain in a vain attempt to look intelligent, when instead you appear foolish.”

Okay, I spent way too much time deconstructing every single one of your joke excuses for a post that wasn't even worth the effort, but I still need to respond to the above quote/insult just to get it out of my system. So for all your talk regarding my, um, “profound simplicity” you seem to have an incredibly difficult time directly answering the points I brought up. I mean, I'm starting to get the nagging suspicion that you're the one that is profoundly simplistic, despite all your vain attempts to appear otherwise, and quite rude to boot. The funniest part is that you take this intellectually superior tone, then proceed to spiel out the garbage and short-sighted prepubescent quasi analysis that doesn't even deal with the arguments, and you spew forth hole-ridden arguments that don't stand even the most cursory scrutiny, all the while on this mammoth high horse. I reiterate, this is comedy gold.

I mean, if you're confident in your arguments, let the strength of your arguments speak for themselves, rather than engage in this running commentary and narrative designed to ease your insecure consciousness that you are, in fact, superior. You've proceeded with offering up lengthy responses during the time I was away, which I appreciate, yet for the most part you skirt the main issues without tackling the arguments head on, take lines out of context and, in response to those lines, offer up the most face-value and shallow responses that are indicative of your lack of any sort of meaningful understanding, all the while, fooling yourself into thinking your sh*tting gold and deriding me for it! And what it means is that I find myself having to retread old ground and repeat points I already made in the original post due to your dancing around of the arguments. I can't tell whether the level to which you are unable to participate in a discussion without resorting to personal attacks and maintaining that ever-present sense of (laughable) superiority is MORE---or LESS---despicable than the lack of any sort of cogent point and dull reason characterized by your posts, each one more laughable than the next. Puhleeze. Spare me the haughty, know-it-all-tone; it makes you look so much the buffoon when compounded with the muddiness of your thinking and your pathetic, wannabe attempts at academic pretensions.

You are guilty of every criticism you've thrown my way, but to you it actually applies. Tenfold. You jump at every opportunity to reveal your petty enjoyment of flaunting your wannabe-cleverness that involves the same old variations of d*cks in all the weird places, c*mming in all the wrong holes. When it comes to actual argument, and you know, things like, LOGIC? You're out of your element and it shows like Mary Beth, aka Lift-Her-Skirt, at a peeping tom show. Pretension doesn't suit you nearly as well as wisecracks about asscracks. Stick to what you're good at, you know, those finely-hone skills from the middle school days. See, some of us actually went to college, and can spot that fakery from a mile away. You love asking people, “Oh, so what school did you go to, Sherlock?” Or some sh*t like that. Well, let me turn that question on you. What school actually graduated your punk ass? Please, pray tell. I'd like to know what top 10 school actually deigned you fit for even breathing the same air. I mean, you sound like you're begging to tell the world, seeing as how you bring it up on every occasion. I'm curious as to how on earth you managed to *sshole your way into the butt cheeks of ANY institution of higher education in the country.

As for your conjectures regarding my motivations, that's all they are: conjectures. Please keep them to yourself. A vain attempt to look intelligent? Puhleeeeeze. I am not you. Nothing screams VAIN ATTEMPT TO LOOK INTELLIGENT! more than the eagerness with which you pounce on an opportunity to make some derogatory comment because you're convinced it makes you look clever, or the laughable excuses for arguments that you've actually deigned worthy of public unveiling. I'd keep that sh*t locked up behind the zippers of a pair of pants just like that certain OTHER thing of yours deemed unfit for society. I have no compulsions to impress internet strangers with long-winded rantings about piracy--I know it will more as likely bore them than impress them, and even more likely--simply alienate them, since most of them probably partake in it in some form or another. I ask, only because I'm genuinely curious. I save my impress-the-stranger tactics for the bar scene on a Friday night. I will leave the internet side of things to you, since that's where you thrive and from whence you derive your meaning of life (OMG! Somebody said something that may or may not have been marginally insulting to my tastes in movies! Now I'm gonna talk about your *sshole! Hey, guys! Look at me! I'm talking about his *sshole! Aren't I clever?). I asked for opinions because I was curious. I was actually thinking the most likely candidate to come up with something decent was you. Then you had to go and ruin it with that ingratiating tone and the mumbo jumbo that you hoped to pass off as logic.

Look, if there's something I don't know, I'd LOVED to be convinced. Really. It would allow me to partake in torrenting files and movies with NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER. I'd love to be able to DEFEND MY ACTIONS as justified while downloading the latest piece of turd concocted from the sh*thole of Bay's ass because I don't want to fund terrorism, but still want to see what all the fuss is about. So please, oblige me. But with something resembling logic next time, and without the ingratiating punkass pseudo-academic wannabe tone of superiority. Oh, and none of that, copy-and-paste and respond line-by-line thing you do where, instead of arguing the points, you try and think up something clever about how that person is a pedophile, or f*cks grandmothers, or some lame sh*t like that. I understand that things like concepts and ideas hurt your brain, but it would help the conversation stay on topic so give it a try.
Eben1277 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:50:18 PM

I'm definitely with you on this one Mink, don't get me wrong. These posts just require so much reading, and my eyes dry out real bad after my contacts have been in so long, that I get a little cranky.
Eben1277 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:53:29 PM

See what I mean? Nitty's last post was just too f*cking long, and now in response, there will be another big Mink post. And not only does this sh*t bother my dry eyes, but it keeps me up, cause in spite of myself, I want to read this sh*t, because I don't want to miss an opportunity to comment like I did on the quentin tarantino list thread. f*ck it though, I'm going to bed.
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:54:20 PM

"It's extremely rare to see a DVD version of a film appear on the internet, while it is still playing in theaters. Almost virtually nil. Almost always the DVD screener hits after the movie has grossed the bulk of its profit. And that's a screener, which is often inferior to a final cut DVD, usually occluded with some watermark or whatnot."

You're right, I don't really have in-depth knowledge regarding pirating. I thank you for sharing any information you have on the subject and for broadening my horizons. Nevertheless, I specifically recall multiple instances in which, at the very least, near dvd type rips were made while a movie was in theaters. This happened with some screeners sent out for the Oscars a while back, with Zombieland I believe, 2012 maybe, and somebody mentioned the Blind Side?

In any case, that's besides the point. My main question is this:

"Mostly, I have in mind the IDEA itself; I am wondering why people feel the IDEA itself justified. The idea that one has a right to see a movie without paying for it, and the notion that these acts have zero effect on the box office."
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:59:32 PM

"IttyBittyTitty feels he has something to prove. I have no idea what it is, and to who he is trying to prove it, but I can say I hardly care, outside illustrating the deficiencies in his reasoning."

Then let's hear about these deficiencies, son. I took special effort to respond to your inanities just to illustrate the deficiencies in yours, and I was explicit in my details as to why.

TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:02:59 PM

“If you think that a 700mb DVDScreener rip of a film, played on computer speakers, all on a 19 monitor, is a 'free version' of a theatrical experience, then you're a bigger idiot than I ever assumed.”

If you think there exactly zero instances in which somebody would have decided to see a movie, but decided not to after seeing it online, or didn't buy a game because he found a version he could download instead, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
minkowski writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:03:33 PM

Go to bed, Eben. Get some sleep. I'm not replying to his or her poorly written and illogical drivel anymore. It's a waste of applied IQ.
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:07:36 PM

“Every film I have ever downloaded was something I would not have watched in theaters.”

That's you. You would fall in the category of, “Someone who never would have watched the movie in the first place.” Rather than the category of our purposes, the one who would have paid for the movie, but didn't due to the free option.

“You simply cannot translate every download to a lost ticket. That's just stupid, especially when all evidence indicates just the opposite.”

I SPECIFICALLY state this was not the case. Quote from my original post: “Obviously, 1 million downloads doesn't = 1 million tickets lost.”

And then I elaborated this point further. You should actually try reading the post next time before attempting a sloppy counterargument.
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:11:54 PM

"Go to bed, Eben. Get some sleep. I'm not replying to his or her poorly written and illogical drivel anymore. It's a waste of applied IQ."

More like, I shred your argument to pieces and there's not a counter to crystal clear logic. Booyah.

Look man, I just wanted to open a discussion. Then you had to get all ugly and act all smart and insult people. Why do you do that? I'm curious. From an...anthropological perspective.

robbskittles writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 8:05:06 AM

"Love the rant Mink, Shouldn't the FBI be doing something usefulll like arresting people that put lives in danger, not movies?"

No chit! right!


Goober3000 writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 3:35:48 PM

@ the NittyGritty
yea well...I can recite all 50 states in a quarter of a second...

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved